230°

If You Value Graphics Over Gameplay – You’re An Idiot

Irritated by the way in which some gamers continue to prioritize style over substance, Mark Butler argues that great gameplay will always count more than great graphics.

Read Full Story >>
fmvmagazine.com
Snookies124806d ago

Agreed, though this should be a given. You're right to call those people idiots, because they are. It's as simple as that. You want to see amazing CGI and graphics, go watch a movie. I play games to PLAY games lol.

Yangus4806d ago (Edited 4806d ago )

100% true!

I videogamer,not Blu-ray&DVD player:D

Ok,nice graphics cool thing,but many"modern"games important only graphics!gameplay its shit.....and 5-6 hours long...
This games not videogames.....this interactive movies.

Outside_ofthe_Box4806d ago (Edited 4806d ago )

I agree in general that you shouldn't value graphics over gameplay, but to call people an idiot or not real gamers for doing so over a particular game?

I dismiss certain manga/anime because I don't like the artistic style of it. I could be missing out on a good story, but to me the art style is far to hideous that it distracts from the overall experience thus I can't bare to read/watch it. Besides why force myself to watch something that has bad visuals, but a great story, while I can watch one that has both?

The same can be applied to video games. People act like gamers have to play every game on the planet and agree with the majority consensus of that particular game in order to be considered a 'true gamer'. Personally I don't think it's wrong for someone to dismiss a particular game because they don't like the graphics. Some people have different preference for different genres. For example, One might not care for graphics for the FPS genre and only care about the gameplay. While for another genre, like let's say a sandbox third person shooter, that same person might prefer to have both good graphics and good gameplay so if either one is lacking, for this sake we'll say if the graphics are lacking, that person will dismiss the game.

Sometimes the graphics might attract a gamer. For example Ni no Kuni got my interest because of the visual eye candy it provides. I probably wouldn't even be looking forward to the game if it weren't for it's visuals and it turns out(judging from the bits of gameplay shown) that the game might rival PS1 jrpg classics. Please don't call me an idiot or not a real gamer because I would have dismissed Ni no Kuni if it had bad visuals.

Also there is nothing wrong with viewing games as interactive movies. Certain developers view games this way. For example Hideo Kojima views video games this way and has made nothing short of masterpieces that boast BOTH good graphics and good gameplay.

Awesome_Gamer4806d ago

Both are important but.. Gameplay is way more important than pretty graphics

Moncole4806d ago

I'm a PC gamer, I care more about how the game play than the graphics. PC gamers can get better graphics so they take it.

Snookies124806d ago

Yeah, I've got a gaming rig, and I do prefer PC over consoles most of the time. Though I never worry about graphics, it's just a nice bonus to be able to play with them a bit on your computer.

Honestly, there are asses out there for every platform whether PC, console, mobile, phone, etc.

GamingPerson4806d ago (Edited 4806d ago )

PC elitists are graphics whores? This there top game played on steam!
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Console gamers are not graphics whore at all! right?

fear884806d ago

I completely disagree with PC gamers being "graphic whores".

Games run smoother on a PC. There is a lot less screen tearing and framerate dropping on a PC of low caliber specs compared to these older consoles. I do however think that it gets carried away when someone needs 4 GTX 580 gpus in quad sli, a 6 core i7 extreme and 6 120gb SSD drive in a raid 5.

At that point the budget has run clear away from all practicality of specs and in that, they are definitely graphic whores or just outright have too much disposable income.

kaozgamer4805d ago

hahahah yea reminds me of crysis. lol all the pc gamers were like "THE GRAPHICS IS SOOOO REAL> HAHA YOU CONSOLE NOOBS WONT GET IT!" when the gameplay was sh*t

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4805d ago
Bleucrunch4806d ago

Gameplay is fun...but in this day and age of HD gaming to not take that into account and to believe that aesthetics do not matter would be a dangerous way to think when it comes to making your games. Think of it this way...the first thing that men and women notice about each other are the looks, they like at first because you are physically appealing to them. And please do not tell me that while looking at a game you are probably gonna be turned away if it looks bad because you will say to yourself, why would I buy this when THAT looks good and plays just as well.

baodeus4806d ago

@streeks 1984:

not exactly. If graphic really appeal to the masses, you wouldn't see handheld or mobile gaming proliferate at such an alarming rate.

Game is about FUN (gameplay/content/story/intere sting ideas) and that has nothing to do with graphics.

PHOSADRA4806d ago

There's nothing wrong with a game having nice graphics, as long as the time and resources used to create the graphics don't hinder gameplay mechanics.

LOGICWINS4806d ago

"If You Value Graphics Over Gameplay – You’re An Idiot"

I wouldn't call them "idiots"...they just aren't gamers.

BiggCMan4806d ago

No he is certainly not right to call those kinds of people idiots. If someone only wants to play good looking games (good looking in THEIR OWN eyes), then who are you to tell them otherwise? I love games of all kind whether it has great visuals or not. However, it is always nice to see hard work put in to the graphics of a game, because we are in 2012 where technology is very far ahead now. My cell phone is now faster than the current generation of consoles, so developers need to step up next gen. Now, if the type of game does not call for eye appealing visuals, like the indie game he mentions in the article, then that is fine. But don't half ass something and be lazy if you are trying to make a game with realistic visuals. Every developer has the means to make a great looking game today, while still having plenty of substance in it. We can have both today, and developers need to take advantage over that rather than give us one over the other.

ATi_Elite4806d ago

Gameplay is always the most important aspect of Gaming.

But innovations in graphics also leads to even better gameplay. So it's a win win situation when the both go hand in hand.

It's sad that a great graphical game (Crysis 2) has limited and horrible gameplay (IMHO when compared to Crysis)

For me I gotta have both. I need great gameplay and great graphics cause i enjoy the immersion of great games.

HarryMasonHerpderp4806d ago (Edited 4806d ago )

@Moncole

I don't mean general PC gamers (im one too)
im on about the guys that just go on and on about
how consoles are holding the PC back because a game
doesn't run at such an such frame rate and the textures are
not as detailed blah blah.What really matters is gameplay.

PshycoNinja4806d ago

Art department (graphics) and the programming and gameplay department (gameplay, AI, playable game) are two separate things in a game development studio. If the game looks nice but the gameplay sucks the programmers failed in the gameplay. If the level doesn't flow right it's the designers fault. If the graphics blow than obviously the artist didn't do their best.

Jormungandr4806d ago (Edited 4806d ago )

I only disagree in that you seem to be implying I shouldn't want amazing graphics if I want to play games.

Well... I do want amazing graphics. In fact I also want a great story and lots of ingenuity. I just want great gameplay more.

Yes, I agree... at the end of the day gameplay should trump everything else. Gameplay should be first and foremost and gameplay should never suffer at the hands of story, graphics, or even ingenuity. But its not wrong for me to want great graphics as well.

The use of FF-XIII as the picture for this article is especially fortuitous. The last FF game (other than the Tactics series or a spin-off like Dirge of Cerberus) to have good gameplay was FF7 (imo). FF6 was great (tho the story turned into a farce every time the clown popped up), FF5 was great (tho forgetable story-wise), FF4 was great (and still my favorite 16-bit FF), and FF7 was great. FF8 sucked, FF9 was ok, FF10 was ok, FF12 was good (but not great), FF13 was a sin. In fact the entire JRPG genre seems to have gone to shit after FF7... the last really good JRPG I played was Breath of Fire 3... and that was an overhead isometric style game with 2d-sprites released on the original playstation around the same time as FF7.

But for just one game... FF7... the FF series had it all... great story, innovation, graphics, and even great gameplay. The problem is that Square (and the rest of the industry) learned the wrong lesson. What they took away wasn't the synergy between these components but the idea that graphics were everything. The main talking points for Square when they launched FF8 were all about the FMVs. And why not? The main talking point for fans when they played FF7 was the FMVs (even though the game had a lot more going for it).

Akuma-4806d ago

Call me an idiot because if a new game doesn't look good enough then I won't enjoy it as much as I would if the graphics are good. To each their own. I wouldn't enjoy killzone 4 if it looks like skyward sword as much as I would enjoy it if it looks like bf3 on ultra settings for pc. If the gameplay is bad then its bad and I won't enjoy it but my first draw will be the graphics

ritsuka6664805d ago (Edited 4805d ago )

This pic speak for yourself, FFXIII have only graphics gameplay looks nothing like the old games...

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 4805d ago
KingOfArcadia4806d ago

Having grown up with video games since the days of PacMan & Defender in the arcade, I fully agree with this article. Even the worst looking games nowadays (say, Deadly Premonition?) are a million miles away from where it all started. If you can't get past poor graphics, well, sucks to be you.

theeg4806d ago (Edited 4806d ago )

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

then play that, endless replay value, multiplayer, it has it all!

graphics are what propel the industry forward, the stagnation of current consoles is the worst thing to happen to gaming in a while.

wake up, 720p is a garbage 12 year old, relic of tech, jaggies should be a thing of the past, anti aliasing is perfected on pc, screen tearing is inexscusable, pop-in, terrible framerates.....all the things that plauge current last gen consoles are non-existant on a mid-range, 4 year old, pc.

graphics are HUGE, equal to gameplay in importance, more so in some ways as without the push for better tech, we just stay where we are.

think if the av industry just stopped at vhs

jthamind4806d ago

that example you gave is a horrible one, but i'm not surprised based on the intelligence level (or lack thereof) of the rest of your post.

a game like that has no depth in the gameplay, no real progression (other than speed), no intricate challenge, and no variety. it's not just that the graphics suck in that, but the gameplay would be boring and stale for anyone who didn't grow up playing it.

i can play NES, SNES, Gensis, etc all day if the games have fun, unique, varied and challenging gameplay, though, because the graphics don't matter.

games have replay value for their gameplay, not because of graphics. i don't play games over and over if they're just about the graphics and story, i play them once, enjoy it, and move on. but games like Ninja Gaiden, Mario, Portal...where the gameplay is truly special...i can play those forever.

so in short...yeah, if you value graphics over gameplay, go watch a movie.

Hicken4806d ago

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example.

When was the last time you made a post that DIDN'T include some reference to screen resolution, framerate, or anti-aliasing techniques?

Graphics, themselves, are not what pushes gaming tech to be better. Gameplay is. Being able to do more in a game, or do it better, is what's most important; graphics improving is a happy bonus.

theeg4806d ago (Edited 4806d ago )

I apologize for coming off as "elitist" in many of my posts. I am aware how it appears, that is not my intention.

It is just that, as a passionate gamer, and someone who loves to see giant strides made in the industry, I feel that the lack of any new consoles in so long is holding us back, not just in graphics, but in advancements in physics, a.i. calculations, depth of gameplay...ect....it all begins with developers having more RAW POWER to allocate resources to.

The current trend in game development is this;

pump all of the ps3/360's available resoure into producing the best graphics possible, well, what we see is 720p max, maybe, MAYBE 2x anti aliasing and 30 frames in 95% of games....then, there is barely anything left for innovation.

With new consoles, with 4gb ram, a 560 ti like gpu, and a i7-920 like cpu, those previously mentioned threseholds would be attainable without even a second thought, then developers would have the freedom to allocate resourses to developing much, MUCH more intracite gameplay, detailed a.i. routines, gameplay mechanics yet unseen on console.

look at a game like Shogun 2 total war, the depth and bredth of that game is simply unavailable on console, they fundamentally do not have the raw processing power to facilitate that type of gaming.

I want progress, advancement and innovation, these things are not possible on current console hardware, all that you will ever see from ps3/360 going forward is gears of war 4, uncharted 4, god of war 4, halo 4...ect....ect...ect....ad infintium.....

some of you are fine with that, i want more!

Mikhail4806d ago

^you have good point but you don't have to be an elitist about it.

I also prefer gameplay over graphics. Longevity/playtime is also important. That is why I enjoy JRPG's because they have long playtime for SP and play RTS on PC.

razorpakk4806d ago (Edited 4806d ago )

If You Value Graphics Over Gameplay – You think differently then me.

That's all, everyone is entitled to like whatever he wants.

Show all comments (64)
120°

Final Fantasy and SaGa series veteran Kazuyuki Shindo leaves Square Enix after 27 years

Kazuyuki Shindo, who worked on games including Legend of Mana, Final Fantasy XIII, and SaGa: Emerald Beyond, has left Square Enix.

Read Full Story >>
automaton-media.com
140°

Resident Evil 5 - 15 Years of Being the Most Misunderstood Resident Evil

Resident Evil 5 launched 15 years ago today - and it continues to stand as a stepping stone from the good to the bad.

TheBrainZ473d ago

One of my favourites because of the co-op. Then Resi 6 arrived and the series nosedived further.

Knightofelemia473d ago

I enjoyed the game co-oping with a friend I know the game in solo the AI can be an idiot but RE5 is way better then RE6. I played RE6 with a friend if it wasn't cheap when I got I would have avoided RE6.

thesoftware730473d ago (Edited 473d ago )

5 was excellent, still play Mercs with my brother.
I would love a fully remastered RE:5, with some added, reworked content. The DLC for 5 was also excellent.

6 was awful.

CrimsonWing69473d ago

I never understood why the game was misunderstood. It was a fantastic game at launch and is still fun today to play. It’s as action packed as Resident Evil 4 was, yet that’s regarded a masterpiece 🤷‍♂️

chobit_A5HL3Y473d ago

it was "misunderstood" because they introduced co-op into the franchise at a time when people loved to have fake rage about co-op. like, you could play the game as a solo experience, but people chose to have their bandwagon rage because it was cool at the time lol

-Foxtrot473d ago (Edited 473d ago )

What the hell are you talking about? Fake Rage? Bandwagon? Come on.

You can play it solo but you are forced to carry around a shitty AI partner you have to micro manage. It wasn't as fun solo.

Co-op sucked all the horror, tension and suspense from the game because having a partner covering you was like a safety net. Enemy trying to sneak up on you? No sweat the AI will just automatically lock on, alert you while they shoot first telling you where they are basically.

It was the start of Capcoms fall with the Resident Evil series where it basically become an over the top generic action game which betrayed it's own survival horror roots. Least RE4 had a good blend of both but Capcom just went the wrong way with RE5, especially going off what they were going to do during the RE4.5 beta phase before co-op was added.

franwex473d ago

At least the game was a ton of fun tho. If the game was bad, the outrage would’ve been justified. They simply pivoted for a couple of games. At this point it’s bad because it’s called Resident evil 5? But if was called something else it would’ve been good? Please.

chobit_A5HL3Y472d ago

like i said: fake baby rage and bandwagon hate. res4 wasn't really that scary, either, and was already taking the series into more of an action-oriented direction at the time. 5 was a good game that people fake-hated because of co-op that you didn't even have to play lol hence the fake rage and bandwagon hate. i mean, it obviously did well enough for capcom to go ahead and make 6 the way they did, right? if 5 was so bad, they would have changed what 6 was during development. the difference is that 6 was actually just bad.

people "hate" 5 because res4 was so good, and 5 was just unfortunate enough to be its successor. like i said, 4 wasn't scary, either, and relied more on tension than horror, but it was already more of an action game. if you don't wanna like 5 because it's not scary or whatever- that's fine, but it wasn't meant to be strictly a horror game anymore at that point anyways. the gameplay was a lot faster-paced than 4, so saying that the ai helping you by potentially shooting someone that was sneaking up behind you is a moot point. there were more enemies that were more aggressive, along with newer threats.

5 isn't as good as 4, but it's not a bad game by any stretch.

RNTody448d ago (Edited 448d ago )

What? I always thought RE5 had fake controversy because it was set in South Africa and you shot a bunch of black zombies. I live in South Africa and thought the game was absolutely awesome, played the whole thing co-op with my brother.

@Foxtrot I think you're confusing the garbage Dead Space 3 with Resident Evil 5. Resident Evil 4 was already a hyper action game and had zero fear factor other than the grotesque appearance of some enemies.

Show all comments (16)
70°

The 7 Best Final Fantasy Characters: Unveiling the Legends

While FFVII ranks highly, there's more to the series than one game. Here's Chit Hot's picks for the seven best Final Fantasy characters.